Jump to content
270soft Forum

Are the recent Israel-UAE-Bahrain and Serbia-Kosovo deals a major foreign policy success for Trump?


Are the recent Israel-UAE-Bahrain and Serbia-Kosovo deals a major foreign policy success for Trump?  

19 members have voted

  1. 1. Are the recent Israel-UAE-Bahrain and Serbia-Kosovo deals a major foreign policy success for Trump?

    • Yes
      6
    • No
      7
    • No, but if more deals are announced before the election is could be
      6


Recommended Posts

According to Allan Lichtman's 'Keys to the White House' the 11th key is

"Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs."

It seems there have been significant steps towards peace in both the Middle East and Balkans with the recent announcements (culminating with the Abraham Accords signing ceremony today at the White House).

Does this amount to a major foreign success, and hence flip the 11th key to Trump?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but I would not have supported them.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish there was a maybe option! It could end up falling in either direction. 

A lot of the Kosovo/Serbia deal still has unknowns: where does it lead to? A lot of it was about Israel, which in reality, doesn't factor in much to Kosovo/Serbia relations. Stopping short of outright recognition, I don't see how much will actually help Kosovo. Serbia can still just say they're trying to wrangle in a rogue province economically. 

As with the UAE/Israel/Bahrain, it's obviously a big deal, but I feel like everyone knew it was coming sometime down the road. Just like if Biden is in office and Saudi Arabia recognizes Israel, it's not as though I'm going to be surprised. The factors on the ground (largely anti-Iran sentiment) make it necessary for Sunni nations to cooperate with Israel. The UAE obviously was in a good position to be the first to do that (more outwardly focused than some others), as well as a tech hub. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think primarily for four reasons:

  • Is US involvement--including the president's involvement--in these treaties as significant as say Carter's Camp David Accord or obama's Iran treaty? That is, is there a chance these treaties could have been made without US involvement. If so, it's a minor success in my book. 
  • Does this foreign policy success directly affect the US in a major way or do these treaties mainly affect the two other countries and their relations with little significance for Americans? If so, it's a minor success in my book. 
  • Are Americans aware of these foreign policy successes and will they remember them by election day as they go to the polls? If so, then it is major. If it is crowded out by other successes/failure of Trump's term, it might not be significant enough to be major. 
  • Does the foreign policy success fundamentally change US foreign policy. Yes or No?
  • Does the foreign policy success seem like it will last beyond the next president's term(s) by election day?

I'd say a major success need all of these (at least 4 of them to be arguably a major success). To me, these don't qualify, but I do understand the attempt to spin these to be more important than they are. I think these are minor successes. I think it arguably misses all 5 of my points. Jimmy Carter hits all 5 points with Camp David. obama hit 4 but missed the last one. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the longevity of the peace agreement is the most important aspect of whether this is a success. Therefore, we won’t really know if the agreement is a success until many years later. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Zenobiyl said:

I think the longevity of the peace agreement is the most important aspect of whether this is a success. Therefore, we won’t really know if the agreement is a success until many years later. 

The treaty of peace and mutual recognition hammered out between Egypt and Israel at Camp David is STILL in effect to this day. Although it looked like Morsi came close to compromising, he wasn't in power nearly long enough to make a precipitous action. No Israeli PM I'm aware of has threatened to breach it, either.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would put the Israel-UAE-Bahrain normalization as a minor success.  I am undecided on the Balkans, but lean towards not being a success. 

That said, in people's perceptions it might be bigger than it is (when it's one of the few successes we've seen in years, when the administration spins and spins it, and given how close to the Election is it).  That said, I don't think a success like this will impact the election (I think foreign policy usually ranks low in people's minds in the election booth, and I would think even more so in the kind of reality we live in today).

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2020 at 2:24 PM, vcczar said:

I don't think primarily for four reasons:

  • Is US involvement--including the president's involvement--in these treaties as significant as say Carter's Camp David Accord or obama's Iran treaty? That is, is there a chance these treaties could have been made without US involvement. If so, it's a minor success in my book. 
  • Does this foreign policy success directly affect the US in a major way or do these treaties mainly affect the two other countries and their relations with little significance for Americans? If so, it's a minor success in my book. 
  • Are Americans aware of these foreign policy successes and will they remember them by election day as they go to the polls? If so, then it is major. If it is crowded out by other successes/failure of Trump's term, it might not be significant enough to be major. 
  • Does the foreign policy success fundamentally change US foreign policy. Yes or No?
  • Does the foreign policy success seem like it will last beyond the next president's term(s) by election day?

I'd say a major success need all of these (at least 4 of them to be arguably a major success). To me, these don't qualify, but I do understand the attempt to spin these to be more important than they are. I think these are minor successes. I think it arguably misses all 5 of my points. Jimmy Carter hits all 5 points with Camp David. obama hit 4 but missed the last one. 

I would say Yes to the third (given the proximity to election day) and fifth (I don't see any reason to expect it to fail).  It's not clear the extent of US involvement, but it's formalizing what was unofficially happening over the last few years (in large part due to Iran's rise in the region) so it likely would have happened without US involvement.  And I don't think it significantly affects the US or US foreign policy.

With regard to Camp David, I would put the first as partly.  Egypt and Israel's initial moves towards negotiation (eg, Sadat visiting Jerusalem, etc) was done without American involvement (the US was taken by surprise) and that initial breakthrough was probably the hardest part of the negotiations.  With both sides open to negotiations, I *could* see a peace deal having been achieved with a different diplomatic negotiator if the US wasn't available, but the US was heavily involved in the negotiations from that point forward, and so I would give them credit for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, these are major foreign policy successes for President Trump.

1. Serbia-Kosovo involved moving their embassies to Jerusalem, something no other nations have mimicked following the US move in prior years.

2. This is the way more important deal : An anti-Iran coalition is being formalized in the Middle East through the Israel-UAE-Bahrain deal.  "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" has always rang true when it comes to Israeli cooperation with other nations in the Middle East (at one time they even covertly supported the Iranian arms industry), but this formalizes that the Sunni nations will have to put aside their differences and work with Israel to curb Iranian influence.  Always was more of a backroom deal before, but now it is being brought into the open.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CPE said:

An anti-Iran coalition is being formalized in the Middle East

Yes, perhaps something like the following is the case - I'm just guessing based on very little study of this issue. Trump's plan for the ME is that the GCC and other actors gets to the point where they are basically able to contain Iran, and then the U.S. largely gets out because it only has 2 major current interests there - 1. Energy, which is now not such an issue with the U.S. energy boom, and 2. Protecting Israel, which is not such an issue once Israel is effectively protected from Iran.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CPE said:

 

1. Serbia-Kosovo involved moving their embassies to Jerusalem, something no other nations have mimicked following the US move in prior years.

Actually, Guatemala and Honduras stated that they plan to open embassies in Jerusalem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2020 at 12:08 PM, admin_270 said:

According to Allan Lichtman's 'Keys to the White House' the 11th key is

"Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs."

It seems there have been significant steps towards peace in both the Middle East and Balkans with the recent announcements (culminating with the Abraham Accords signing ceremony today at the White House).

Does this amount to a major foreign success, and hence flip the 11th key to Trump?

 

On 9/15/2020 at 12:19 PM, Hestia11 said:

I wish there was a maybe option! It could end up falling in either direction. 

A lot of the Kosovo/Serbia deal still has unknowns: where does it lead to? A lot of it was about Israel, which in reality, doesn't factor in much to Kosovo/Serbia relations. Stopping short of outright recognition, I don't see how much will actually help Kosovo. Serbia can still just say they're trying to wrangle in a rogue province economically. 

As with the UAE/Israel/Bahrain, it's obviously a big deal, but I feel like everyone knew it was coming sometime down the road. Just like if Biden is in office and Saudi Arabia recognizes Israel, it's not as though I'm going to be surprised. The factors on the ground (largely anti-Iran sentiment) make it necessary for Sunni nations to cooperate with Israel. The UAE obviously was in a good position to be the first to do that (more outwardly focused than some others), as well as a tech hub. 

 

21 hours ago, Defiant said:

I would say Yes to the third (given the proximity to election day) and fifth (I don't see any reason to expect it to fail).  It's not clear the extent of US involvement, but it's formalizing what was unofficially happening over the last few years (in large part due to Iran's rise in the region) so it likely would have happened without US involvement.  And I don't think it significantly affects the US or US foreign policy.

With regard to Camp David, I would put the first as partly.  Egypt and Israel's initial moves towards negotiation (eg, Sadat visiting Jerusalem, etc) was done without American involvement (the US was taken by surprise) and that initial breakthrough was probably the hardest part of the negotiations.  With both sides open to negotiations, I *could* see a peace deal having been achieved with a different diplomatic negotiator if the US wasn't available, but the US was heavily involved in the negotiations from that point forward, and so I would give them credit for it.

 

2 hours ago, CPE said:

Yes, these are major foreign policy successes for President Trump.

1. Serbia-Kosovo involved moving their embassies to Jerusalem, something no other nations have mimicked following the US move in prior years.

2. This is the way more important deal : An anti-Iran coalition is being formalized in the Middle East through the Israel-UAE-Bahrain deal.  "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" has always rang true when it comes to Israeli cooperation with other nations in the Middle East (at one time they even covertly supported the Iranian arms industry), but this formalizes that the Sunni nations will have to put aside their differences and work with Israel to curb Iranian influence.  Always was more of a backroom deal before, but now it is being brought into the open.  

I don't know about the Kosovo one, but the Israel-UAE one worries me, as it just gives more coordination to the toxic allies in the Middle East of the U.S. and certain other Western Countries (like Canada) who demand much but offer little to tie together "the tails wagging the dog," to more easily drag these Western Powers into pointless - and criminal - wars in the Middle East. The West should withdraw militarily from the region completely - it's and utter quagmire in all ways, and with no profit to be. Early Western meddling in the area created the modern concept of Islamist Terrorism, which did not previously exist in Islamic history, as a reaction to it. Not a penny, not a bullet, not a drop of blood more by the West to wars in the Middle East!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2020 at 1:03 PM, admin_270 said:

Yes, perhaps something like the following is the case - I'm just guessing based on very little study of this issue. Trump's plan for the ME is that the GCC and other actors gets to the point where they are basically able to contain Iran, and then the U.S. largely gets out because it only has 2 major current interests there - 1. Energy, which is now not such an issue with the U.S. energy boom, and 2. Protecting Israel, which is not such an issue once Israel is effectively protected from Iran.

I highly doubt that the US will withdraw from the region entirely, but he is definitely trying to organize resistance to Iran and their proxies.  Better to fight as a unified front than piecemeal.  The US will probably maintain a small presence in the Middle East, no matter what happens with Iran, to keep a check on Russian/Chinese influence in the region.

 

23 hours ago, Defiant said:

Actually, Guatemala and Honduras stated that they plan to open embassies in Jerusalem.

Thank you for the correction, I was unaware of that.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...